Skip to main content

Senator Clinton Releases Energy Policy Plan

In a speech yesterday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton laid out her energy policy for her presidential campaign. Here's the passage on nuclear energy (PDF):
Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.
For other Clinton items from our archives, click here.

UPDATE: Some reactions here and here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here.

Comments

bryfry said…
Ah ... so she would take us back in time to ... well ... the 90's.

It's interesting to see that her plan for nuclear energy so closely resembles her husband's: that is, it's a plan to do nothing. At least the Clintons are a consistent pair.

So much for being "agnostic."
Anonymous said…
A vote FOR a Democrat is a vote AGAINST nuclear power.

If Clinton gets in office, then there will be NO new nukes, and it's unlikely that IPEC or VY will conitune to operate.

I've told you this before: don't ingratiate yourselves before these people. Simply defeat them in 2008.
Sovietologist said…
I've written a post on my blog with my admittedly contrarian analysis of Sen. Clinton's position on nuclear power. Long story short, I think she's far more reasonable than she appears.
Anonymous said…
In other words, making vague promises to nuclear supporters while appeasing the anti nuclear fring by throttling any real progress. If others don't I still remember what another Clinton did in the 90's concerning nuclear developement.
d kosloff said…
Somebody should tell Hillary's advisors about the Swedish experience with their "30-year phase out" of nuclear power.
robert merkel said…
Anonymous:

With respect, you're being unrealistic. A strategy for the nuclear industry that relies on keeping Democrats out of office forever won't work any better any more than a plan to introduce (to pick an example of an issue that the American left would dearly love to see happen) single-payer healthcare that relies on keeping Republicans out of office forever.

From what I can tell, at this point in time Senator Clinton is more likely than any other person to be the next President of the United States. Furthermore, there's not much you, or anyone that reads this blog can do about it; the number of people motivated to vote, donate, or or mobilise on nuclear energy, is tiny.

As Sovietologist points out, Hillary's left herself all manner of wiggle room on nuclear power. That's a world away from, say, John Edwards. And it's simply not true that left-of-center governments won't ever support nuclear; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have fought their party's base tooth and nail to get new nuclear power on the agenda in Britain.

Anyway there's a choice; work with Democrats as best you can (who aren't monolithic on the issue), or don't work with them and get frozen out of the debate entirely.
Anonymous said…
Told ya. Hillary! is anti-nuke at heart. Any intimations to the contrary are just pandering.

What did the Clintons do for (to?) nuclear power in the '90s? How about canceling the IFR at Idaho? Their bag-man Bill Richardson killed the HFBR at Brookhaven Lab. Clinton's first speech to Congress noted that the government wasn't going to be doing some things anymore, "like nuclear power development". Yep, they sure did a lot.
Anonymous said…
Robert Merkel,

I respect your opinion, but I'll never vote Democrat anyways, nor will I ingratiate myself with liberals. It is also unlikely I'll vote Republican in the upcoming election, especially if Rudy wins the Republican primaries. There are moral issues that trump nuclear power, although I still won't vote for any candidate who is anti-nuke. I probably will vote Constitution Party - they are closest to how I feel politically. Sadly, their candidate won't get elected, but it's my vote and it won't go to either Rudy or Hillary, even though Rudy is pro-nuclear. As I said, there other other issues (moral in nature) that require this course of action.
Ian said…
Anonymous, if it's what you believe, sign it with your name.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…